4 ms·

My own personal answer to that question is that it's never ethical to end the life of a loved one. But in the case of animals, ultimately they are lower ethica

by csense 8y ago

My own personal answer to that question is that it's never ethical to end the life of a loved one. But in the case of animals, ultimately they are lower ethical status than humans. Murdering a suffering pet so you don't have to see it suffer is a decision you make for some combination of easing your own emotions so that you don't have to see your pet's increasingly medically burdened life firsthand, giving in to social pressure from others who believe the "cruel to keep the suffering dog alive" line, and the practical logistical and financial burden of taking care of a needy pet. A lot of people have the reverse line, that it's actually not cruel to euthanize a suffering person, and ought to be legal. I object to that on two grounds. First of all, who judges whether a person's suffering meets the criteria for euthanization? I wouldn't trust potentially sticky-fingered relatives hotly anticipating the reading of the will, a medical establishment that is paid for its services, or a government bureaucracy. Second, even simpler, I don't want to die; death has a huge negative score in my utility function, I don't think I would ever accept my own death, regardless of what it bought. If I was captured by some crazy super villain gave me a choice between (a) let me go, but the super villain would torture a million innocent people to death, or (b) kill me, but then the super villain would commit suicide and will their entire $1 billion fortune to my family (and I believed these threats / promises with no doubt). I'd have trouble deciding. If preventing a million other people's suffering isn't reason enough to make me choose to die, why should preventing my own suffering be sufficient?

thanksDr 8y ago
Would you submit to torture to prove your point? You might consider volunteering at a hospice.
krageon 8y ago
> ultimately they are lower ethical status than humans. The rest of your reasoning notwithstanding, statements like this indicate that you don't quite understand how ethics works. Most importantly, 'ethical status' really isn't a thing and even if it was making blanket statements about how ethics goes for everyone will 100% always be wrong. Ethics is about being able to reason about what is right for you, within your moral framework. It's not something you can apply to other people (at least, not if you want to make sense).

by csense 8y ago

thanksDr 8y ago

Would you submit to torture to prove your point? You might consider volunteering at a hospice.

krageon 8y ago

> ultimately they are lower ethical status than humans. The rest of your reasoning notwithstanding, statements like this indicate that you don't quite understand how ethics works. Most importantly, 'ethical status' really isn't a thing and even if it was making blanket statements about how ethics goes for everyone will 100% always be wrong. Ethics is about being able to reason about what is right for you, within your moral framework. It's not something you can apply to other people (at least, not if you want to make sense).